Slashdot Mirror
'Open Source Creators: Red Hat Got $34 Billion and You Got $0. Here's Why.' (tidelift.com)
Donald Fischer, who served as a product manager for Red Hat Enterprise Linux during its creation and early years of growth, writes: Red Hat saw, earlier than most, that the ascendance of open source made the need to pay for code go away, but the need for support and maintenance grew larger than ever. Thus Red Hat was never in the business of selling software, rather it was in the business of addressing the practical challenges that have always come along for the ride with software. [...] As an open source developer, you created that software. You can keep your package secure, legally documented, and maintained; who could possibly do it better? So why does Red Hat make the fat profits, and not you? Unfortunately, doing business with large companies requires a lot of bureaucratic toil. That's doubly true for organizations that require security, legal, and operational standards for every product they bring in the door. Working with these organizations requires a sales and marketing team, a customer support organization, a finance back-office, and lots of other "business stuff" in addition to technology. Red Hat has had that stuff, but you haven't.
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time. Sure, big companies know how to install and use your software. (And good news! They already do.) But they can't afford to put each of 1100 npm packages through a procurement process that costs $20k per iteration. Red Hat solved this problem for one corner of open source by collecting 2,000+ open source projects together, adding assurances on top, and selling it as one subscription product. That worked for them, to the tune of billions. But did you get paid for your contributions?
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time. Sure, big companies know how to install and use your software. (And good news! They already do.) But they can't afford to put each of 1100 npm packages through a procurement process that costs $20k per iteration. Red Hat solved this problem for one corner of open source by collecting 2,000+ open source projects together, adding assurances on top, and selling it as one subscription product. That worked for them, to the tune of billions. But did you get paid for your contributions?
Why is this an article? Did these people actually expect to receive compensation?
I have been using their software since the mid-90s with version 3. I have never paid them anything. I bought a third party book on it once, they may have gotten some revenue from that.
Red hat has hired and payed a huge number of people to develop and contribute to open source code. They've made massive contributions to Linux and are a key part of why it has become what it is today. Fedora/RHEL/CentOS may not be your favorite flavor but the simple fact is that in order to compete against them your favorite flavor adopted things made by them and had to compete with their usability. There are dozens of things in your home right now which are better because of Red Hat's contribution, not to mention all the things you use online.
I'm not rich because of Red Hat but I have gotten paid. Sadly I was a broke teenager when their IPO happened and the people I strongly advised to get in on it didn't listen.
I've shared source code updates for for-profit companies before, and do not mind if I don't get updated. Same would be true if I had contributed to Red Hat...
However it does seem like it would really be a great gesture of goodwill, to give some large amount of money (say $10k) to the top 100 RedHat contributors, however they felt like defining it...
I guess the danger is of course it may make many other jealous, who were just below the cutoff... so maybe it's better just to leave it as is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Red Hat has been one of the biggest contributors in the open source ecosystem for a very long time. For the kernel in particular consider unlike many of the other major contributors they are not writing code to supporting their own hardware.
At the end, he makes a pitch for his company. This is advertising disguised as news. Shameful.
1100 npm packages
What does the Node.js package manager got to do with Redhat Linux?
If you look at the top most contributing devs, you'll notice that they are actually on the pay roll of companies who rely on linux. If they weren't already employed by Red Hat, they would probably be at Intel, Google, even IBM themselves...
Not all programmers are poor. If they are anywhere near competent (and open-source software makes a great portfolio that is easy to show around), they'll certainly get hired, perhaps even get paid for their open-source hobby.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Stop poisoning the well. This is not economically-viable, it's not a good idea, and it's going to encourage people to get away from real and important policies like a Citizen's Dividend.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
The freedom of other people to make money with software you write -- provided they figure out how -- has always been part of the deal.
Thee free software economy is still capitalism, it's just capitalism where you're paid for what you do for a specific customer. The proprietary software market is one where investors in effect attempt to collect fees for a naturally unlimited resource created, almost always, by other people.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Have gnu, will travel.
if we lived in a world with UBI and the like.
Stop poisoning the well. This is not economically-viable, it's not a good idea, and it's going to encourage people to get away from real and important policies like a Citizen's Dividend.
So I read into what a citizen's dividend was, and then I read down to "this concept is a form of basic income guarantee". IOW, a CD is a UBI.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember: not only RH pay salary for FLOSS engineers and supporters...
Founders of the Atlanta Linux Showcase, which was the main Linux convention in the late 90's, worked their asses off, for free, to make the event happen every year. After a few years Red Hat gave the major contributors some stock, for free, as a thank you. I'm sure they did the same to others, this is just the case I know of.
In addition, Red Hat hired many contributors to open source, and gave them a good job so that they could continue to develop software, not just for Red Hat but for all of us. Remember Alan Cox? Me too, but there's many more. I'm sure all of those great technical hires got stock and each is getting a bit of the $34 billion.
Red Hat has always been less selfish and more fair than most software companies. They've always reflected open-source values, IMHO.
I got and get paid by using their contributions to the kernel, among other things. Open Source is a barter economy.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Under what circumstances would you (gripers) then recommend to produce and release open source software, such that you would get some payback if a comparable windfall occurred partly based on your work?
"Open source, but with strings attached?"
What does Richard Stallman think about this?
How much risk are you taking by trading your hours for a fixed income.
Marx' argument falls apart when you realise not all employees are paid out of their own surplus value.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
If scientific discoveries were copyrightable in the way of music and movies
They are. The term of exclusive rights is just a lot shorter for an invention than for a work of authorship.
But who is going to generate the risky investments that are required to power an economy that can sustain a UBI? An economy without investment and risk is dead - look at the USSR for one. If you give everybody a guaranteed x, then you take the incentive away to do y to get x.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
They do, just indirectly. What we get is an operating system
That is a great point and a. good reminder about the value that people who seem to work for "free" are really getting from the work. They probably are not working if they do not benefit from the result itself.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
There is another aspect people are ignoring. Linux has been corporate controlled and developed for years. A lot of work has been subsidized, and therefore directed, by various corporations. Linux is long past the point where it is primarily a "hobbyist" and "volunteer" effort.
The Linux foundation reports that 75% of kernel development is done by corporate sponsored developers. Who tops the list of these corporate sponsors? Red Hat.
https://www.computerweekly.com...
Remember: not only RH pay salary for FLOSS engineers and supporters...
No, but Red Hat tops the list and IBM is #4:
..."
"The top 10 organizations sponsoring Linux kernel development since the last report (or Linux kernel 2.6.36) are:
1. Red Hat,
2. Intel,
3. Novell,
4. IBM,
5. Texas Instruments,
6. Broadcom,
7. Nokia,
8. Samsung,
9. Oracle
10. and Google."
"... more than 7,800 developers from almost 800 different companies have contributed to the Linux kernel since tracking began in 2005. Of particular interest perhaps is the finding that — seventy-five percent of all kernel development is done by developers who are being paid for their work
https://www.computerweekly.com...
Because I have a stable operating system, build tools, applications, and even a few games that I have been using for years that I do not have to pay a large corporation for. How much would I have had to pay microsoft or apple for twenty years of software?
http://nwbagpipes.com/
Type of Demogrant. UBI tries to pay out enough to live; a Citizen's Dividend pays a dividend.
I designed one that would have been an effective $300Bn tax cut in 2016, paying $6,000 per adult in 24 payments throughout the year, based on 1/8 of personal income and corporate profits as the FICA source. You build Social Security retirement and disability on top of this, along with a welfare system.
The Dividend doesn't supply enough for anyone to survive; rather it tends to strongly increase buying power and effective demand in impoverished local economies. That creates jobs around those who need jobs where unemployment is high. You supply welfare to ensure access to needs of individuals, and a dividend to couple the economy to itself and ensure that any wounds heal. Quickly.
A Dividend as such grows faster than inflation. It grows with the GNI/C trend, which is always faster than inflation in medium terms (1-3 years).
People propose UBI as an alternative to work and welfare, absolving the government of responsibility. A Citizen's Dividend isn't an alternative to work and welfare, but rather a system to ensure people get a fair share and that the economy stays healthy and provides employment where employment is needed.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
It was open source software. Free.
When they went with the support business model, I knew someone was going to get screwed. "Thanks for making this great piece of software, community, but it needed so much dang support... we'll take the money."
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
and Red Hat contributes A LOT to open source too. If it wasn't for Red Hat there would be no "Linux" as we know it.
IBM too. Red Hat #1 and IBM #4 in terms of corporate development of Linux. All together 75% of kernel development is corporate.
https://www.computerweekly.com...
Viability of UBI depends entirely on the amount paid. $100 / month is easily affordable, but probably not useful. $2000 / month is very useful, but less affordable.
The incentive to do work also depends on it. Most people will not be happy living on $500 / month for an extended period of time, but would be on $2000 / month.
Marx assumed that all the gravitation effects in the solar system existed in (sun,planet) interactions. His theory falls apart as soon as you add a single moon. Even without moons, (planet,planet) interactions are often strong enough to really mess up space probe navigation.
Imagine if Newton was smart enough to figure out the inverse square law concerning (sun,planet) but wasn't smart enough to conclude that the same law applied to (planet,apple). Congratulations, you've got Marx, where the smallest scale of interaction is (overclass,underclass). My how the sun in the heavens exploits, exploits, exploits.
And this trick still works. Point to any sufficiently bright and shiny object ($34B will do nicely) and then cue the universal chorus of shade woo.
Plus, don't get me started about Mercury taking more than his share.
Plutos, unite!
And there's another obvious point. If Linux were not free, it would not exist - let alone have any value. IBM has its own, perfectly good, proprietary unix platform. But they want to sell Linux - because people want to use Linux. And people want to use Linux because its free, which made other people want to use it. If the open source contributors to Linux had intended to eventually be compensated for their code, Linux would not exist. So you can't come along once Red Hat has become a viable business and say "I wrote some of the software - where's my payout?".
Red Hat's payout is for having become one of the main go-to companies for Linux support - and consistency as a platform over time. And now that many Linux users are migrating to Amazon's cloud, Red Hat's business is likely to shrink. But IBM's cloud business has nowhere to go but up - unless it fails. But it's a $36 billion bet they feel they have to make.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Sometimes one can phrase obvious consequences of a discovery as "specific practical methods." For example, if the discovery is that lack of substance A in the human body causes disease B, the discoverer might claim to have invented supplementation with A as a method of treating B.
Eggactly, if you don't want to volunteer look for a paid gig. If you can't get a paid gig, then consider volunteering.
I was able to get in on Red Hat's IPO because I made a small contribution to net-snmp a couple years before. I didn't get rich, but it was a nice bonus that year.
If the goal is to eliminate homelessness and extreme poverty, a UBI should be set equal to current SSI disability incomes. I believe that's around $800 a month, which is enough to live in less expensive cities with roommates. Because many homeless are incapable of responsibly managing money (often due to mental illness or addiction), it'll also be necessary to have a dual system where when someone is found living on the streets a social worker can arrange for most of their UBI to be redirected to appropriate housing and food on their behalf.
This space intentionally left blank
My point:
Don't work for free.
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I am fine with programmers who are willing to contribute to open source projects without any compensation. I am fine with companies like Red Hat that find a way to make money off the generous contributions of others. I am fine with companies paying their employees to work on open source projects that will benefit the company.
What irks me are all the 'open source zealots' out there who insist that anything closed source is some kind of evil thing. If you build something and take great personal risk to get it ready for market, you are often portrayed as some kind of 'greedy capitalist' if you want others who get value from your product to actually pay you something directly for your efforts. You built it. You own it. If you want to charge something for it, then you better make sure it adds more value than the price you are charging for it. Just don't let anyone tell you that you are less than human for not wanting to just give away the fruits of your labors.
This article is from 2012. If you want up-to-date stats see LWN's regular reports, e.g. here is a recent one for 4.18:
https://lwn.net/Articles/76069...
(Though Red Hat is indeed still right up near the top.)
Thank you, #3 and #9 now, but wow Intel #1, Linux Foundation #2.
Unfortunately, it also requires Lennart Poettering and whichever spaztard messed up Gnome.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Are you forgetting or just unaware that the FSF used to charge hundreds of dollars to purchase copies of their software (which then gave you all the rights to copy and redistribute)? Making money has always been allowed and encouraged.
Sure, but that was just the FSF charging for the mag tapes and gas money for station wagon ;-)
And just like you don't have time to sell to large companies, they don't have time to buy from you alongside a thousand other open source creators, one at a time.
That is right, they don't buy from me. Because I don't ask for money. They couldn't buy from me, even if they wanted to. I'd just point them to gitlab or github or sourceforge or my own website, depending on what it is they want and wherever I put it.
And I'm fine with that, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.
But distributors like SuSE and RedHat were controversial from the beginning because even if the legalese fineprint said something else, they did everything in their power to create the impression that they were selling software.
I personally don't have a problem with the business model, save that it could be a bit more honest, but this particular blurb someone in PR wrote is just... stupid, insulting and false.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I develop for open source projects. I also make my bread and butter from Cisco Call Manager. Call Manager btw is a Linux based PBX. Linux' success is my success. I have no reason to stop contributing to open source in my spare time as I see fit.
Didn't RedHat offer the open source community some kind of inside deal on stock for their IPO? I remember something about it.
If true, it's not Red Hat's fault if you sold early
- Sig
And there's another obvious point. If Linux were not free, it would not exist - let alone have any value.
I know, like Windows and MacOS. Oh wait...
Time to grab a copy of CENTOS before IBM does what they do best.. lock everyting up in a support contract and kill off whatever they can?
I turned the PHBs at RH in to the feds, and still made a lot from the IPO.
Yeah, it was me. Next time, don't steal.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Intel have done a lot of work on the parts of the kernel that interface with their hardware. Graphics drivers, networking, ....
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
IBM has its own, perfectly good,
Well AIX does have a reputation .. and it isn't perfectly good :P
But, but, ... the best things in life are free!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Both of which are now FREE - but not open.
The states with the highest homelessness already give money, food stamps, housing etc to everyone under a certain income level. They also have massive amounts of government funded social programs to help people with housing and work.
Many European countries are going broke providing these social nets to just about anyone in their country (including illegal immigrants) and yet many live on the street, many have no housing etc. These are governments that historically have literally built and rented out for virtually nothing entire neighborhoods of houses through social programs - I grew up in one of those neighborhoods - yet beggars and homeless are lining the streets.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com